| Course | DBAX 9101 Business Research Project Stage 1 |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Question draft |
| Length | About 760 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Doctor of Business Administration (DBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for DBAX 9101 Week 7
Three Ways to Ask One Question: Drafting and Testing Research Questions for a Study of Late Payment Strategies, Keeping the Version Whose Answer Would Change What Small Subcontractor Owners Do
Student Name
Walden University
DBAX 9101: Business Research Project Stage 1
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Three Ways to Ask One Question: Drafting and Testing Research Questions for a Study of Late Payment Strategies, Keeping the Version Whose Answer Would Change What Small Subcontractor Owners Do
Why Draft More Than One Question
A research question is easy to write and hard to write well. Each wording assumes something about what the answer will look like, who can supply it and what it will be used for. Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) argue that strong research questions come from examining the assumptions behind a field's usual questions rather than simply filling gaps. This paper drafts three versions of the question for my study, tests each against the problem and purpose and keeps the one whose answer would matter most to practice.
The Three Versions
Table 1
Three Draft Research Questions Compared
| Version | Wording | Assumes | Answer would look like | Fits purpose | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | What strategies do owners of small specialty trade subcontracting firms use to manage late payment from general contractors? | Owners use identifiable strategies | A set of strategies with examples from each firm | Yes | |
| B | How do owners of small specialty trade subcontracting firms experience late payment from general contractors? | Experience is the key unknown | Themes describing the experience of waiting to be paid | Partly; drifts toward experience rather than strategy | |
| C | What is the relationship between days sales outstanding and the survival of small specialty trade subcontracting firms? | The key unknown is the size of an effect | A correlation or regression estimate | No; requires a quantitative design and data on failed firms | |
Each version was checked against the specific business problem and the purpose statement from Week 6.
Testing Each Version
Version C asks a good question for a different study. Its answer would show how strongly payment delay predicts failure, which is useful to policymakers, but it would not tell an owner what to do. It also requires data on firms that closed, which the review by Peters et al. (2019) shows is not collected systematically, which would be hard to gather and is outside the purpose.
Version B would produce rich description, and owners' experience of waiting for payment matters. But an answer made of themes such as anxiety, frustration and dependence would describe the problem without offering a way through it. The specific business problem names a lack of strategies, not a lack of understanding.
Version A asks directly what the specific problem says is missing. Its answer, a set of strategies grounded in the practice of firms that survived, is something another owner could compare with their own approach. It fits the qualitative multiple case design and the purpose statement word for word.
Questioning Version A's Assumption
Version A assumes that owners have strategies. Some may say they simply endured, or that luck and a patient bank carried them through. The interview questions will allow for that answer, and the study will report it if it appears. I have also asked, as Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) recommend, whether "managing" late payment assumes it can be managed at all; if the study finds that the most effective strategy is avoiding certain general contractors entirely, that is still a strategy, and an important one.
The Interview Questions That Follow
The research question will be answered through about eight open interview questions, such as: How do you decide whether to bid work from a general contractor whose payment record you know? What do you do when a payment is thirty days past due? Which practices have you tried and dropped? These draw out strategies without suggesting particular answers. Yin (2018) notes that case study evidence gains strength from several sources; interviews will be supplemented by contracts and aging reports where owners agree to share them.
Sub-Questions Considered and Dropped
I considered adding two sub-questions: one on how strategies differ by trade and one on how owners learned their strategies. The first would require more firms per trade than four cases allow. The second is interesting, and some of it will surface naturally when owners explain why they adopted a practice, but making it a formal question would split the study's attention. Keeping a single question keeps the data collection and the analysis focused, and leaves the other two as possible directions for later work, which the final chapter can name as recommendations for further research.
Final Question
The research question for the study is Version A: What strategies do owners of small specialty trade subcontracting firms use to manage late payment from general contractors? It aligns with the problem's language, the purpose's design and the audience the significance argument named.
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.59330882
Peters, E., Subar, K., & Martin, H. (2019). Late payment and nonpayment within the construction industry: Causes, effects, and solutions. Journal of Legal Affairs and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction, 11(3), Article 04519013. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)LA.1943-4170.0000314
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Reading the DBAX 9101 Week 7 instructions
Week 7 asks you to draft your research question and show that its answer would matter. Explain why you are drafting more than one version. Write at least three versions that differ in what they assume about the answer. Compare them in a table showing each wording, its assumption, what the answer would look like and its fit with your purpose. Test each version against the problem and against what a practitioner could do with the answer. Question the assumption behind the version you prefer. Show a few interview or data collection questions that would follow from it. Explain any sub-questions you considered and why you kept or dropped them. State your final question.
How this DBAX 9101 Week 7 example is built
The paper opens by noting that each wording hides an assumption, citing Alvesson and Sandberg. A table compares three versions. A section rejects the quantitative version as suited to policymakers and dependent on data about failed firms. A section rejects the experience version because themes would describe the problem without a way through it. A section keeps the strategies version for matching the problem's terms. A section questions whether owners have strategies at all and allows for answers such as endurance or luck. A section lists sample interview questions and cites Yin on multiple sources. A section drops two sub-questions. The final question closes the paper. The interview questions avoid naming any strategy, so owners are not led toward an answer.
DBAX 9101 Week 7 rubric: what earns full marks
Committees reward questions whose answers practitioners could act on, so testing each version against practical use carries the most weight. Comparing versions in a table shows deliberate choice. Identifying the assumption behind each wording demonstrates critical thinking. Questioning the preferred version's own assumption shows rigor. Sample interview questions show the question can be answered. Explaining dropped sub-questions shows focus. A final question that matches the problem and purpose exactly demonstrates alignment. Drafts that offer a single question without alternatives, choose a wording the design cannot answer or let the question drift from the problem's terms fall short of the course's expectations. A final question written in the same words as the problem and the purpose is the simplest proof that the three now agree.
DBAX 9101 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost marks
Write your question three ways: one asking what people do, one asking how they experience something and one asking how much one thing relates to another. For each, imagine the answer and ask who could use it. A question whose answer only describes a problem rarely satisfies a DBA committee. Check that your question uses the same words as your problem and purpose. Then ask what your preferred question takes for granted, and allow your interview guide to hear the opposite. Many students write a question that sounds scholarly but cannot be answered with the data they can reach. Others add sub-questions that double the work. Comparing versions takes practice, and our writers can test yours against the purpose.
Get a DBAX 9101 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 7 prompt and rubric, your purpose statement and any question drafts, however rough. Three tested drafts for a neighboring problem, with a consequence table for the survivor, return inside 24-48h, and the first one is free. The question that ends up in your document is worded by you, against your own purpose.
More DBAX 9101 papers and DBA samples
- DBAX 9101 Week 1: Topic to Problem Discussion
- DBAX 9101 Week 2: Problem Candidates Comparison
- DBAX 9101 Week 3: Problem Evidence Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 4: Study Boundary Statement
- DBAX 9101 Week 5: Significance Argument Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 6: Purpose Statement Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 8: Framework Fit Paper
- DBAX 9101 Week 9: Study Feasibility Sketch
- DBAX 9101 Week 10: Stage 1 Peer Critique
- DBAX 9101 Week 11: Assembled Stage 1 Document
- DBAX 8151 Week 7: Applied Theory Analysis
- DBAX 8101 Week 7: Study Alignment Check
- DBAX 8006 Week 7: Scheduling Consequence Analysis
DBAX 9101 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free DBAX 9101 Week 7 sample paper?
All three draft questions and the comparison table are free to read below.
Which question does the DBAX 9101 Week 7 paper keep?
What strategies do owners of small specialty trade subcontracting firms use to manage late payment from general contractors?
Why is the quantitative version rejected?
It suits a different study and needs data on firms that closed.
Why is the experience version rejected?
Its answer would describe the problem without offering owners a way through it.
What assumption is questioned?
That owners have strategies rather than simply enduring delay.